On April 22, 2025, five armed militants opened fire on tourists near Pahalgam in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir, killing 26 civilians in one of the deadliest attacks in the region in recent memory. The massacre set off a familiar cycle of emotion and recrimination — but it also exposed a deeper, longer-running pattern: the ease with which raw sensation and national size can shape a story, while quieter acts of diplomacy and restraint go unnoticed. The Washington Post later documented how, during the May crisis that followed, aggressive headlines and misinformation in parts of India’s media amplified triumphalism and distorted operational realities — a reminder that misinformation can be as dangerous as missiles.
To understand South Asia’s present, we must confront its past. The early months after Partition were shaped by contested choices and resentments: the forcible annexations of Hyderabad and Junagadh in 1947–48 and disputes over the division of assets left a legacy of mistrust that has not entirely faded. Such early breaches of expectation helped set a tone of grievance and insecurity that has made subsequent crises harder to resolve.
Yet Pakistan’s record is not one of opportunistic aggression. In 1962, when India was fully engaged with China on the Himalayan front, Islamabad declined to open a new theatre in Kashmir — a restrained calculation that is seldom cited in the headlines that prefer simpler narratives of rivalry. Similarly, during the turbulent 1980s, when Operation Blue Star and the killing of Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale ignited Sikh unrest across Punjab, Pakistan refrained from exploiting India’s internal crisis, choosing instead to maintain strategic composure. In recent years, Pakistan has unilaterally opened the Kartarpur Corridor, allowing Indian Sikh pilgrims visa-free access to one of their holiest sites — a gesture of cultural respect and cross-border amity rare in the subcontinent’s contentious history. Over the decades Pakistan has also offered cooperation after high-profile incidents: it proposed joint probes and intelligence sharing after the Mumbai attacks of 2008 and has repeatedly signaled readiness for talks even when overtures went unanswered. These are not empty gestures; they reflect a consistent strategic posture that favors measured diplomacy over escalation.
Pakistan’s role as a discreet conduit between great powers is longstanding. In the early 1970s, Islamabad served as the back channel for Henry Kissinger’s secret 1971 trip to Beijing, a mission that paved the way for President Nixon’s rapprochement with China. That episode — the work of quiet brokers in small rooms — reshaped Cold War geopolitics and is a reminder of how much influence can be exercised offstage.
More recently, the region’s crises have shown how restraint can prevent catastrophe. When South Asia teetered on the brink during the intense aerial exchanges of 2025, Pakistani forces demonstrated readiness; what mattered equally was Islamabad’s decision not to allow escalation to become war. Independent reporting later described sophisticated engagements involving modern jets and missiles, and subsequent diplomacy — by multiple international actors, especially U.S. President Donald J. Trump — helped stabilize the situation before it widened.
Across eras, Pakistan has also stood with the wider international community on matters of consequence: as a frontline partner during the Soviet–Afghan war, as a partner in global counterterrorism efforts, and as one of the larger contributors to U.N. peacekeeping operations. Yet public recognition of these contributions has often been perfunctory — rhetoric without the long arc of partnership that builds mutual trust. If the global community expects Islamabad to exercise restraint and responsibility, it must reciprocate with meaningful engagement.
Pakistan’s strategic relevance has rarely been more evident than in recent crises straddling West and Central Asia. Lying between Iran and China, it occupies a geographic and strategic corridor through which no significant initiative can advance without its participation. As tensions flared between Iran and Israel, Islamabad maintained a posture of measured restraint, using quiet channels — including those in Washington — to signal the urgency of de-escalation. President Donald J. Trump once noted that Pakistan “knows Iran very well, better than most” and is “not happy” with instability in the region — a remark widely interpreted as recognition of Islamabad’s unique vantage point. That vantage stems not only from its shared border and deep cultural ties with Iran, but also from its robust partnership with China — a combination that allows Pakistan to understand and influence multiple sides of a complex chessboard.
Beyond managing immediate crises, Pakistan has quietly facilitated peace in distant theaters. In the South Caucasus, it lent discreet encouragement to U.S. efforts under President Trump that helped advance the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process. Closer to home, it unilaterally opened the Kartarpur Corridor, enabling Indian Sikhs visa-free access to one of their holiest shrines, in a rare gesture of goodwill across a bitterly contested border. These acts, though understated, reflect a consistent instinct to bridge divides — religious, ethnic, or geopolitical — and to create openings for dialogue even when official channels remain frozen.
In an era of fractured alliances and multiplying fault lines, this quiet but consequential diplomacy underscores Islamabad’s potential as a bridge-builder in volatile theaters where few states can claim credibility with all major players. It is a role Pakistan has played with subtlety and restraint, and one the world can ill afford to overlook.
What would meaningful engagement look like? First, renewed, sustained diplomacy to resolve the core bilateral issues that persist — including Kashmir — along practical lines of dialogue, dignity, and development. Second, concrete investments in human capital: scholarships and academic exchanges for Pakistan’s brightest, so talent returns to strengthen institutions rather than drain away. Third, targeted economic partnership: responsible foreign investment in Pakistan’s energy, minerals and infrastructure sectors that raises living standards and reduces the incentives for conflict. These are not favors; they are pragmatic moves to stabilize a region whose security matters to the globe.
Diplomacy has many faces. Some states command with loud speeches and displays; others change outcomes by working quietly, consistently, and with restraint. Pakistan’s history shows that it belongs to the latter category. To sideline such an actor—or to judge it only by episodic crises—is to forfeit tools we sorely need in a volatile neighborhood.
India’s history in the region is marked by repeated interventions and covert operations that have fueled instability and mistrust. From orchestrating military aggression that led to the creation of Bangladesh in 1971, to sustained involvement in destabilizing smaller neighbors such as Bangladesh and Afghanistan, India’s record contrasts sharply with Pakistan’s measured approach. Indian intelligence agency RAW has been implicated by multiple international observers — including the Canadian government and U.S. intelligence oversight bodies — for its role in assassinations of Sikh leaders in Canada and elsewhere, actions that severely strained India’s diplomatic relations and raised serious questions about state-sponsored extrajudicial activities. Moreover, incidents like the tragic Jaffar Express bombing have been linked by credible analysts to Indian covert interference aimed at fomenting unrest in Balochistan. India’s extensive clandestine operations near Pakistan’s borders, as well as its interference in the domestic affairs of neighboring states, paint a picture of a regional power pursuing destabilization as a strategic tool. In stark contrast, Pakistan has consistently refrained from such provocations, favoring diplomacy, restraint, and genuine efforts toward regional peace.
This history underscores a critical asymmetry: while India often leverages its size and influence to project power aggressively, Pakistan’s role has been defined by prudence, bridge-building, and a persistent pursuit of stability despite tremendous challenges. Pakistan’s legacy — from facilitating the landmark U.S.–China rapprochement during the Cold War, to maintaining calm amid crises in Kashmir and beyond — reflects a state striving to be a responsible actor amid a turbulent neighborhood. For the international community, recognizing Pakistan’s quiet diplomacy is not merely a matter of fairness but a strategic imperative. Engaging Pakistan as a credible partner offers a pathway toward a more secure, cooperative South Asia. Ignoring or sidelining Islamabad risks perpetuating cycles of mistrust and conflict. The choice is clear: embrace Pakistan’s stabilizing influence today, or pay the price of regional volatility tomorrow.
Read more: Pathways to Pakistan’s Prosperity
